Chennai Court February 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sundaram Vs. State Rep. by Sub-inspector of Police Adambakkam, Madras- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC686
ORDER1. The above revision is directed against (he order of conviction and sentence dated 23.6.94 in S.T.C.No.2202 of 1994 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee, convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act and punishing him with a fine of Rs.250 on the basis of his pleading guilty. 2. The petitioner was facing a trial for (he offence punishable under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 23.6.94 at 9.30 A.M., when the petitioner was found in a drunken state and was using abusive words in (he public place, and therefore, the petitioner was immediately arrested by the police and was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee, on the same day, where, the petitioner pleaded guilty. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, recorded his pleadings that he was guilty and convicted him under Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Namby
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR179(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions of this court under Section 27(5) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred to us for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Sections 5(3} and 5(1A) of the Wealth tax Act, 1957, and Section 32(1)(ba) of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing exemption on Rs. 23,955 being the value of the units in the Unit Trust of India even though they were not held by the assessee for the period of six months as on the valuation date for the assessment year 1977-78 ?' 2. Though Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, fairly stated that the assessee is no more and time should be granted to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record, yet, in our opinion, this tax case is of the year 1984 and, therefore, it is not necessary f...
Thanthi Trust Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR117(Mad)
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-II, Madras-34, from proceeding with the assessment of the petitioner or from making any assessment order under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1974-75. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition several anterior facts relating to the nature of the assessee being a trust entitled to exemption under the Income-tax Act, 1961, have been stated in detail. Having regard to the issue under consideration in this writ petition, it is sufficient to mention the following facts alone. 3. It appears that there was a raid in the premises belonging to the petitioner at Madurai, Coimbatore and Tirunelveli and the premises were searched by the officers of the Income-tax Department on September 3, 1976. In the course of the search, certain books of account were seized under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rane (Madras) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR377(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions of this court in T.C.P. Nos. 285 to 292 of 1982 dated January 9, 1984, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common question of law for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the receipts on account of selling agency commission, receipts from job works, interest on deposits and exchange fluctuations on forward contract should be taken into account as receipts attributable to priority industry for allowing relief under Section 80E/80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'. 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of tie rods and clutches, viz., automobile parts. There is no dispute that the assessee is a priority industry. For the assessment years 1966-67 to 1971-72, the assessee, inter alia, claimed relief under Sections 80E and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Venu Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR1015(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred for our consideration under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for determining the market value of the shares of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (P.) Ltd., gifted on March 14, 1974, the proper balance-sheet to be taken was as on March 31, 1973, and not the balance-sheet as on March 51, 1974 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions for gratuity should not be added back in arriving at the total assets of the company for the purpose of determining the break-up value of the shares ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a net deduction of Rs. 19 lakhs should be made from the total value of the assets of the company in relation to dividends to arr...
Chairman-cum-managing Director, Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Rangan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ560Mad
C. Shivappa, J.1. The appellant-Corporation is a public sector undertaking under the Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy, Government of India. The respondent herein filed two writ petitions W.P. Nos. 9906 and 9907 of 1984. Writ petition No. 9906 of 1984 sought for quashing the order of the Labour Court in Claim Petition No. 966 of 1980. Writ Petition No. 9907 of 1997 sought for quashing the proceedings bearing No. 17439/RI-3/75-16, dated November 7, 1975. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing Writ Petition No. 9906 of 1984, allowed the second Writ Petition No. 9907 of 1984 and granted the relief to the respondent herein. The appellants are aggrieved by the said order in Writ Petition No. 9907 of 1984. Hence, this Appeal.2. Few facts are necessary to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal. The Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy, Government of India, issued a notification to all public sector undertakings, including the appellant herein, wherein a policy direction was g...
Gordon Woodroffe and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ570Mad
C. Shivappa, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 7909 of 1985, dated October 19/1995. The brief facts are that the second respondent herein filed T.N.S.E. Case No. I.A. 13 of 1985 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras challenging the order of termination of his services with the Management of M/s Gordon Woodroffe Limited, Madras, dated July 13, 1984 under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. That Respondent No. 2 has stated in the appeal that he was initially appointed at Madras, transferred to Hyderabad and continued to serve under the petitioner though posted to Hyderabad till July 13, 1984, the date of dispensation of his service. The terms of employment are such that he will be under the control and supervision of Madras Office only and in fact he has to draw his salary even from Madras Office. He further contended that the order of...
Board of Trustees and ors. Vs. Dr. Kamala Dakshinamurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ356
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.5.1992 passed by the learned single Judge on the original side in C.S.No, 936 of 1989. For convenience, in this judgment, we shall refer to the parties as described in the suit itself.2. The plaintiffs filed the said suit C.S.No. 936 of 1989 in a representative capacity, after obtaining necessary permission of the court in Application No. 2219 of 1989 under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The third plaintiff was permitted to prosecute the suit on behalf of the other plaintiffs, and those applicants whose names have been mentioned in the plaint. The Order was passed on 3.5.1989 and the court directed to issue notice by way of publication in one issue of Malai Murasu. Accordingly publication was effected and thereafter the plaint has been presented. The first defendant is the Board of trustee of Sri Nagar colony represented by its Executive Trustee, and defendants 2 to 6 ar...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vs. Namby
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)272
N. V. BALASUBRAMANL4N, jIn pursuance of the directions of this Court under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act'), the following question of law has been referred to us for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of ss. 5(3) and 5(1A) of the WT Act, 1957, and s. 32(1)(ba) ofthe Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, the Tribunal was right in allowing exemption on Rs. 23,955 being the value of the units in Unit Trust of India even though they were not held by the assessee for the period of six months as on the valuation date for the asst. yr. 1977-78?'2. Though Mr. CY. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue fairly stated that the assessee is no more and time should be granted to take steps to bring thelegal representatives on record, yet, in our opinion, this tax case is of the year 1984 and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to wait for the Revenue to take steps and, therefore, we ...
Bakiam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by It Secretary to Govt., Proh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC57
ORDERJudgment Pronounce by V.S. Sirpurkar, J1. Heard. In this petition, the detention of one Mathi @ Mathiyazhagan son of Krishnan, under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Inmoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai city is in challenge. The detaining authority has considered the said detenu as a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Said Act.2. The detaining authority has relied on two adverse cases. They being Crime Number 127 of 1997 on the file of H.B. Thiruvotriyur Police Station under Sections 341, 307 I.P.C. altered to 302 I.P.C. and Crime No. 130 of 1997 on the file of the same Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 336, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The ground case relied upon by the detaining authority is vide Crime Number 179 of 1997 on the file of the same Police Station for the offen...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »